al-Taqiyyah (Hiding one's faith)

al-Taqiyyah literally refers to the practice of hiding one’s faith when one’s life is in danger from others who may wish to harm them for what they believe. This concession is one of the most misunderstood practices of the Shi’a and the source of much criticism about Shi’a beliefs.

If you examine the Hadith referring to Taqiyyah more closely, it specifies that in certain situations, Muslims should employ the practise of Taqiyyah in matters of life and death. In reality the Shia have found themselves in that very situation on numerous occasions throughout Islamic history.

The practice is legitimised during times of danger by the Holy Qur’an in Surah 16: Ayah 106:

“Whoever renounces faith in Allah after {affirming} his faith—barring someone who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith—but those who open up their breasts to unfaith, upon such shall be Allah’s wrath, and there is a great punishment for them.”

This verse was revealed in relation to the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companion ‘Ammar b. Yasir, after he was forced to use renounce his faith in order to save his life from the Qurayshi pagans who were torturing and killing Muslims for refusing to outwardly profess disbelief.

There are many conditions set by the scholars of Islam pertaining to the practice of Taqiyyah and it is generally not advised to adopt it when one is not in danger. In fact in some cases, it is not even permissible to use the practice of Taqiyyah. It should, therefore, only be used as a last resort.

Bibliography and Further Reading

Aqa’id al-Imamiyyah, M.R al-Mudhaffar, Ansariyan, Iran, 2003

Shi’a. M.H al-Tabataba’i, Ansariyan Publications, Iran, 1999

There are many misconceptions which have been spread about the Shi’a and their beliefs, but perhaps one of the most unfortunate relates to the concept of Taqiyyah.

Taqiyyah literally refers to the practice of hiding one’s faith when in danger from others who may wish to harm them for what they believe. It is often falsely claimed that the Shi’a are obligated and commanded by their religion to lie about their beliefs to anyone who may discuss religion with them.

This misconception creates further problems for the Shi’a with non-Shi’a who are suspicious that in clarifying the misconceptions, Shi’a are simply lying about their beliefs. Such a misconception is uninformed, and indeed dangerous. Shi’a scholars and jurists are clear about the wisdom behind the concept of Taqiyyah, and like other concepts in Islam it has several rules and conditions which govern the practice and its scope.

It also derives its legitimacy from the Qur’an which no single Muslim would reject as a source of legislation.

Two Qur’an verses can be cited pertaining to the dispensation of Taqiyyah:

Surah Aal ‘Imran, verse 28 (3:28)

“The faithful should not take the faithless for allies instead of the faithful, and whoever does that Allah will have nothing to do with him, except when you are wary of them out of caution.”

Surah al-Nahl, verse 106 (16:106)

“Whoever renounces faith in Allah after {affirming} his faith—barring someone who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith—but those who open up their breasts to unfaith, upon such shall be Allah’s wrath, and there is a great punishment for them.”

Both verses are unanimously clear and unambiguous in regard to the legitimacy of outwardly concealing truth in the face of danger. The second verse in particular was revealed after the case of the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companion Ammar b. Yassir who used Taqiyyah and pretended to leave the faith of Islam in order to save his own life.

In the important works on the beliefs of the Shi’a, namely “The Beliefs of the Shi’a,” Allamah al-Mudhaffar (d. 1964AD) articulates the correct Shi’a position on Taqiyyah namely that it is conditional and certainly by no means an absolute obligation:

“Taqiyyah has rules and observations which indicate whether it is obligatory (wajib) or not, and these are mentioned in the relevant chapters of the books of those learned in jurisprudence (fiqh). It is not obligatory at all times, but is sometimes optional; and sometimes it is obligatory not to do it, as when it is necessary to proclaim the truth publicly, to protect Islam and save it, or to fight in the cause of Islam.”

The summary of Taqiyyah provided by the Allamah clearly clarifies the often misunderstood concept. Non-Shi’a’ who remain confused about this practise would be advised to consult the summary provided by the Allamah.

Taqiyyah literally refers to the practice of hiding one’s faith when in danger from others who may wish to harm them for what they believe. This concession is one of the most misunderstood practices of the Shi’a and the source of much criticism about Shi’a beliefs.

The most widely spread misconception regarding the Shi’a understanding of the concept of Taqiyyah is that it is not only permissible but compulsory for every Shi’a to employ the tactic of blatantly lying about their beliefs when discussing their views on religion with others.

In order to understand Taqiyyah as it is utilised and understood by the mainstream Shi’a community, it is necessary to analyse the concept from several different dimensions so as to give an elaborate and nuanced image of the concept in its appropriate context.

1) Taqiyyah in the Holy Qur’an and according to Muslim scholars.

2) Taqiyyah as utilised in Islamic History.

3) Narrations pertaining to Taqiyyah.

4) Incidents where Taqiyyah has not been adopted due to an absence of necessity.

5) Taqiyyah as has been defined and categorised by Islamic theologians.

1) Taqiyyah from the Qur’an viewpoint

The Qur’an is recognised as having referred to Taqiyyah in several verses. Several of these verses shall be cited and analysed in this entry.

Surah Aal Imran, verse 28 (3:28)

“The faithful should not take the faithless for allies instead of the faithful, and whoever does that Allah will have nothing to do with him, except when you are wary of them out of caution.”

The verse above from Surah Aal ‘Imran clearly pertains to Taqiyyah. The last part of the verse contains a unique clause and exception that it is permissible to conceal one’s beliefs when one fears for his life or other forms of danger.

Surah al-Nahl, verse 106 (16:106)

“Whoever renounces faith in Allah after {affirming} his faith—barring someone who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith—but those who open up their breasts to unfaith, upon such shall be Allah’s wrath, and there is a great punishment for them.”

The verse in Surah al-Nahl has a very clear context; that those who accept the faith in Islam, then renounce the religion shall be subject to Allah’s wrath. However, the verse also contains an exception, in cases during which a believer’s life is threatened and in danger. Indeed at times a whole community may be under threat; Allah permits the denial of beliefs to avoid the shedding of blood.

The above mentioned verse has a unique context which is recognised unanimously by all Muslim scholars. It was revealed to the faithful companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w), ‘Ammar b. Yassir.

He will be covered in more detail in the following section on history.

The permission for the practice of Taqiyyah is firmly in line with the Qur’anic ethos for God's mercy for the believer:

“Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear…”

(Qur’an 2:286)

2) Taqiyyah in Islamic History

There are several examples of Taqiyyah in Islamic history during which the practice has been utilised to the benefit of the Muslim Ummah and for the prevention of the loss of life of key Islamic individuals.

Below are some key examples during which the concept of Taqiyyah has been utilised.

a) Ammar b. Yassir

The foremost example of God giving permission for Taqiyyah in order to avoid danger occurred during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). One of the Prophet’s (s.a.w) righteous companions, namely Ammar b. Yassir, was forced to deny his faith to avoid being killed in an incident in which his parents were martyred.

‘Ammar was one of the earliest converts to Islam, and was even born within the same year as the Holy Prophet. After Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) went public with Islam in Makkah the Pagans from the Quraysh had captured ‘Ammar’s father, namely Yassir b. ‘Amir, and his mother Sumayyah b. Khayyat, who had also converted to Islam.

Despite being submitted to heavy forms of physical and psychological torture they both refused to renounce their faith. Subsequently, his father and mother were killed, becoming the first martyrs for Islam. Immediately after witnessing the brutality of his parents’ murder for refusing to renounce Islam, ‘Ammar outwardly renounced his faith.

After all the martyrs were killed, Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet (s.a.w) and others arrived to find ‘Ammar as the sole survivor. After recounting what had happened to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w), an ayah was immediately revealed confirming the acceptance of the practise of Taqiyyah by all Muslims (16:106).

The example of Ammar b. Yassir highlights that God had recognised that at times when there is a choice as to whether or not one should sacrifice their life for the sake of truth, it would be wiser to temporarily compromise and outwardly submit to disbelief in order for survival.

b) Sunni Jurists employing the concept of Taqiyyah in Islamic History

It would be extremely unfair and certainly historically incorrect to imply that only the Shi’a have historically employed the practice of Taqiyyah. On the contrary, certain groups have utilised the need to practice Taqiyyah based upon the historical circumstances they themselves faced.

A few clear cut examples shall be cited in order to substantiate the above claim:

i) Imam Malik b. Anas (d. 179AH/795AD) the founder of the Maliki school of Jurisprudence purposely avoided narrating from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (a.s) during the rule of Bani Umayyah:

Narrated by Mus’ab b. ‘Abd Allah al-Zubayri:

I heard al-Darawardi say: Malik never narrated from Ja’far (al-Sadiq) until the advent of the Abbasid rule.

ii) Imam al-Awza’i (d. 774AH) and IbnShihab al-Zuhri (d. 741ah) two prominent individuals from the developmental period of Islamic jurisprudence avoided narrating anything about Imam Ali (a.s) during the rule of BaniUmayyah.

It was said about al-Awza’i, that he never narrated anything of the merits of Imam Ali (a.s) other than this one narration, and likewise al-ZuhrI he never narrated anything about him other than one hadith. The two were both afraid of BaniUmayyah.

3) An Analysis of some narrations pertaining to Taqiyyah

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s):

i) “Taqiyyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers, whoever has no Taqiyyah has no religion”

ii) “The practicing of Taqiyyah is always necessary in a desperate situation. The person, whom is intending to practice Taqiyyah, knows best to decide on how to do that.”

iii) “What else can make me more happy than the practicing of Taqiyyah. Verily Taqiyyah is the shield of the believer.”

iv) “Solely in order to avoid bloodshed, Taqiyyah was established. However, once bloodshed has already occurred there can be no Taqiyyah anymore.”

The Sixth Imam, Imam al-Sadiq (a.s) narrates:

v) “The closer this affair (hadha al-amr) approaches, the more persistent one must be in their practice of Taqiyyah”

Such narrations may seem confusing to one who is unfamiliar with the historical context during which the Imams and their followers found themselves, however, it is clear that the Imams were doing their best to avoid bloodshed amongst their followers. The narrations are insightful in that several of them limit the scope of Taqiyyah, particularly Hadith number ii and iv.

It is crucial to recognise the historical circumstances surrounding these narrations and attempt to reconstruct a context for these narrations surrounding the practice of Taqiyyah. Since it can be substantiated that even non-Imami jurists feared narrating traditions which would elude to sympathy towards the Ahlulbayt, it is clear that the Imamiyyah faced even greater danger in doing so.

To the extent that there is one narration showing the absolute severity of the situation in which the community found themselves, Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (a.s) commanded the community not to mention Imam Ali (a.s) and Sayyeda Fatimah.

“Oh people, be careful of mentioning Al and Fatimah for there is nothing more disdained/despised to the people than the mention of Ali and Fatimah”

In a modern day context, no Shī’ā would ever have to avoid mentioning either Imām ‘Alī or Sayyeda Fatima, however, it clearly denotes that there was a historical context during the Imāmate of Imām al-Ṣādiq whereby even the mention of these two most beloved figures to the community was something that could endanger the lives of believers.

4) Incidents during which Taqiyyah was not adopted due to absence of necessity.

i) Salman al-Farsi the Great companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w)

One historical example from the Hadith literature of the Imamiyyah in which Taqiyyah was not utilised is a case in which one of the great companions of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w), namely Salman al-Farsi, underwent extreme torture at the hands of a group of Jews who were hostile to Islam.

The incident is recounted in the Tafseer attributed to Imam Hassan al-Askari (a.s):

“Thereafter they started hitting Salman for the third time. But Salman continued to recite the same supplication, that is, ‘Oh Allah! Grant me patience to bear this oppression due to my love for your selected friend Muhammad’. The Jews said ‘Woe unto you. Did Muhammad not allow you to speak something against your belief by way of dissimulation during hard times?’ Salman replied: ‘Indeed Allah has given me such permission, but it is not obligatory.”

This incident illustrates that a Muslim oppressed at times may choose not to practice Taqiyya even though he/she may be allowed to do so.

ii) The Case of Maytham al-Tammar (d. 61AH/679AD)

Maytham al-Tammar was one of the loyal companions of Imam Ali (a.s), the first Imam, and indeed was known for extreme devotion to Imam Ali (a.s). His story is one that is frequently recounted in sermons pertaining to sacrifice and the danger that was once faced in openly affiliating with Imam Ali (a.s).

Originally an Iranian, as is reflected from his name of non-Arab origins, Maytham lived in Kufa and was a date-seller by profession, hence his title “al-Tammar” (coming from the Arabic name for dates).

Imam Ali (a.s) had informed Maytham that a day would come in which Maytham would be asked to denounce Imam Ali (a.s) and his love for him publically, that his tongue would be cut out and that he would be crucified in Kufa. After showing Maytham the tree on which he would be crucified, Maytham would tend to the tree daily by supplying it with water and would constantly say: “You are here to fulfil my ends and I am here for yours.”

Under the reign of Mu’awiya as Caliph, the governor of Kufa was known as Ziyad ibn Abih, he was from amongst Mu’awiya’s close inner-circle and of course was known for his persecution of Shi’a. It was under his reign that Maytham was taken into custody and imprisoned for his reluctance to distance himself from Imam Ali (a.s).

It was not until the reign of Yazid, the Son of Mu’awiya, as the Caliph that Maytham would be killed. During this time ‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, the son of Ziyad the previous governor, summoned Maytham and again asked him to separate himself from Imam Ali (a.s) and to condemn Imam Ali (a.s).

Refusing to do so, Maytham was told he would be killed by Ubaydullah, to which he responded that such was foretold to him by Imam Ali (a.s). He then described what Imam Ali (a.s) had told him, that:

His hands and feet would be cut, he would be crucified and finally his tongue cut out.

Out of stubbornness and a reluctance to allow Ali’s prediction to be manifested, ‘Ubaydullah proceeded with all actions except the cutting of the tongue, solely in order to mock and disprove Maytham’s initial predictions, telling him:

“You’re Imam was a Liar!”

Eventually crowds gathered around Maytham as he was being crucified. He continued to recount the sayings of Imam Ali (a.s) and his merits recounted by the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). He did this until eventually the soldiers were ordered to cut out his tongue and stab him, thus proving that Imam’s foresight was correct.

The case of Maytham has confused some as to why he did not employ the concept of Taqiyyah.

Muhammad Husayn al-Mudhaffar gives several possible reasons as to why Maytham did not employ the practice of Taqiyyah including the following:

A) Maytham believed that by not practicing Taqiyyah, he was protecting the honor of Imam Ali (a.s) through his devotion and sacrifice.

B) Imam ‘Alī had warned Maytham that the only way to escape death at the hands of ‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad was not only to distance himself from Imam Ali (a.s) but to curse him, which Maytham could not do.

C) Taqiyyah is only required in certain conditions (see the traditions mentioned previously) which Maytham may have felt were not in place.

Taqiyyah as defined by Islamic Theologians and Jurists:

There have been many books written on the subject of Taqiyyah, from the multifaceted approaches of Jurists, theologians and Qur’an scholars. Such works have expanded into numerous volumes and hence justice could not be adequately done in mentioning all the facets in this entry. However, it shall suffice to give a brief summary of the discussions pertaining to Taqiyyah from several key figures in Islamic history namely:

a) Shaykh al-Saduq

b) Shaykh al-Mufīd

c) Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita

d) Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar

e) Allamah al-Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i

a) Shaykh al-Saduq

Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ali b. Babuwayh al-Qummi (d. 381 A.H) has some remarks on the concept of Taqiyyah within his works on Imami theological creeds, namely “The Shi’a Creed.”

Within this book, Saduq elaborates heavily on his understanding of the concept of Taqiyyah and states:

“Says the Shaykh, may the mercy of Allah be on him: Our belief concerning Taqiyyah (permissible dissimulation) is that it is obligatory, and he who forsakes it is in the same position as he who forsakes prayer.”

This is perhaps the most extreme position adopted by any of the Imami theologians regarding the concept of Taqiyyah. However, there are clearly differences of opinion in this regard, with other Imami theologians, namely Shaykh al-Saduq, who reinforces the severity of this obligation in his work where he states:

“Now until the Imam al-Qa'im appears, Taqiyyah is obligatory and it is not permissible to dispense with it. He, who abandons it before the appearance of the Qa'im, has verily gone out of the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, and the religion of the Imams.”

The comments allude to the seriousness of maintaining the practice of Taqiyyah. Shaykh al-Saduq, seems to have held that it was completely obligatory and that the abandoning of Taqiyyah would be tantamount to committing a major sin. Such a view seems to have been based on some of the hadith quoted earlier which have been transmitted from Imam al-Baqir (a.s). Al-Saduq’s attitude reflects a very extreme position, which was by no means the sole position at his time.

b) Shaykh al-Mufīd

Shaykh Mufid (d. 413AH), a very prominent theologian and figurehead within the history of the ShI’a School, and a near contemporary of Shaykh al-Saduq, has a slightly different understanding of the concept of Taqiyyah and the scope of which the concept must be given.

In his work “The Rectification of the Shi’ite Creed,” which has also been entitled “A Commentary on the Shi’a Creed of Shaykh al-Saduq,” Al-Mufīd critiques al-Saduq’s slightly restricted understanding of Taqiyyah:

“ash-Shaykh al-Mufīd adds: Dissimulation is disguising the truth and concealing belief therein, reticence in the face of one's opponents and refraining from divulging to them that which might result in injury to one's religious or worldly welfare. It is obligatory only when injury is absolutely certain, or the presumption of it is very strong. But if it was not certain or obvious that harm would result from disclosing the truth, nor was the presumption strong, then dissimulation is not obligatory.”

In his commentary of al-Saduq’s views on Taqiyyah, al-Mufid elaborates on the scope of Taqiyyah explicitly highlighting the fact that if no harm is said to stem from revealing the truth then Taqiyyah is not obligatory on an individual. Al-Mufid therefore can be seen as having adopted the precepts of Taqiyyah has given in the varying narrations and deriving contextual injunctions from them.

“The truthful ones, (the Imams), peace be upon them, have ordered a certain group of their followers not only to refrain and cease from demonstrating the truth, but also to veil and conceal it from the enemies of the religion, and to appear to them in such a way as to dispel their doubts during their disputation with them, since this was in their best interest; whereas they commanded another group of their followers to dispute with their opponents and divulge their true doctrine to them, and invite them to embrace the truth, since they knew that no harm would befall them. Hence, dissimulation is obligatory in the cases we have put forward; whereas the obligation is removed.”

Al-Mufid explicitly demonstrates that unlike al-Saduq, who worked on isolated traditions from the Imams, he took a more holistic approach which took into account the historical practices of the Imams as well as the traditions, demonstrating a slightly more nuanced view of the injunction of Taqiyyah.

c) Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita

Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita (d. 1954AD), represents one of the more prominent jurists who lived during the first half of the twentieth century and therefore operated within a modern framework. He had the duty to respond to critiques against the Shi’a from non-Shi’as as well as anti-religious critiques. In his major work, “The Roots of the Shi’a and their Principles” he gives a brief articulation of Taqiyyah.

As one would expect from the modern context from which Shaykh Kashif al-Ghita observed Taqiyyah, he begins his articulation with a comment demonstrating his displeasure at the amount of confusion that the concept seems to have caused others in regards to the Shi’a:

“In the matter of Taqiyyah [….] the Shi'a are very much defamed and the reason for that is that ordinary people are quite ignorant of its reality. A careful consideration will show that the Taqiyyah in which the Shi’a believe is not peculiar to them alone. Rather, it is a logical necessity and a natural demand. There is no commandment of the Shar’iah which is inconsistent with wisdom and learning. In every problem, knowledge and wisdom appear together.”

Kashif al-Ghita continues on a similar note elaborating on the wisdom of the Shar’iah prior to explaining the conditions of Taqiyyah as he derives them:

“There are of course rules for Taqiyyah. They are three:

If life will be lost for no purpose, then it is an obligation,

If expressing the truth would serve some useful purpose, then it is optional

If kufr is gaining the upperhand, people are being led astray, and there is danger of cruelty and oppression, then Taqiyyah is forbidden.”

Kashif al-Ghita does provide several more elaborate cases in Islamic history during which several prominent figures in Shi’a willingly sacrificed their lives in pursuit of spreading the truth, however, such examples would be too long for the scope of this entry.

d) Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar

Another extremely prominent figurehead for the Shi’a during the early twentieth century is the great intellectual Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar (d.1383/1964), who is best known for his work on Usul al-Fiqh as well as his work on philosophy and theology. Within his most popular work “The Faith of Shi’a Islam,” al-Mudhaffar gives a brief articulation of his understanding of Taqiyyah which differs very little from that of Kashf al-Ghita’s, however, at times in response to the polemical attacks against the Shi’a, one can detect the defensive position which was adopted by the Shaykh.

“The purpose of Taqiyyah, in the view of the Shi’a, is not to form a secret organisation dedicated to destruction and subversion, as some of their enemies, who are not able to see things in their true light, have imagined, for such people have made no effort to really understand what we say. The point is not to make Islam and its rules a secret which cannot be divulged to those who do not believe. No, the books of Shi’a and their writings in the fields of jurisprudence (Fiqh), law (Ahkam) and theological studies, as also their beliefs, are in great abundance in the world, more than any other sect that is sure of its way.”

Like his predecessors, al-Mufid as well as Kashif al-Ghita and al-Mudhaffar also stipulate the conditions surrounding Taqiyyah:

“Taqiyyah has rules and observations which indicate whether it is obligatory (Wajib) or not, and these are mentioned in the relevant chapters of the books of those learned in jurisprudence (Fiqh). It is not obligatory at all times, but is sometimes optional; and sometimes it is obligatory not to do it, as when it is necessary to proclaim the truth publicly, to protect Islam and save it, or to fight in the cause of Islam.”

e) Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i

One of the most prominent scholars of the twentieth century, Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i (d. 1981AD), known for being a very multi-dimensional and capable scholar in very divergent fields such as philosophy, mysticism and Fiqh, is perhaps most famous for his work on interpretations of the Qur’an, namely "Tafseer al-Mizan."

Whilst his thoughts on the concept of Taqiyyah do not greatly differ from those of the other two twentieth century scholars mentioned earlier, it is insightful to read his articulations on this issue.

In order to avoid the repetition of ideas, below is a brief citation of the Sayyed in response to the critique of others regarding the concept of Taqiyyah in Shi’a Islam:

“Some have criticized Shi’a by saying that to employ the practice of Taqiyyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery. The least amount of thought about this accusation will bring to light its invalidity, for Taqiyyah must be practiced in a situation where man faces a danger which he cannot resist and against which he cannot fight. Resistance to such a danger and failure to practice Taqiyyah in such circumstances shows rashness and foolhardiness, not courage and bravery. The qualifications of courage and bravery can be applied only when there is at least the possibility of success in man’s efforts. But before a definite or probable danger against which there is no possibility of victory- such as drinking water in which there is probably poison or throwing oneself before a cannon that is being fired or lying down on the tracks before an onrushing train- any action of this kind is nothing but a form of madness contrary to logic and common sense. Therefore, we can summarise by saying that Taqiyyah must be practiced only where there is a definite danger which cannot be avoided and against which there is no hope of a successful struggle and victory.”

The key area of insight from the Sayyed’s quote is that, the Sayyed turns the accusation on its head and produces evidence that rationally proves to those who refuse in all circumstances to practice Taqiyyah are in reality those who are in the wrong from the perspective of Islamic ethics.

Conclusion

While it can be observed that there have been many misconceptions about Taqiyyah, they have primarily been based upon a shallow analysis of several traditions. However, once the concept is analysed from a holistic perspective, it is clear that there is a very elaborate context surrounding the concept of Taqiyyah.

At the very least, one must take into account that the scholars have always stipulated strict conditions in regard to adopting and implementing Taqiyyah and that there is little reason to believe that whenever a Shi’a discusses his religious views with anyone who is non-Shi’a that he is using Taqiyyah, as in most cases there would be absolutely no reason to do so.

Reader's who read this article also read:

There are small but contentious differences in how the Shi’a and Sunni Muslims pray. The prayer rituals of the Shi’a are distinct, and have drawn criticism from non-Shi’a schools. The first major misunderstanding regarding the prayer of the Shi’a is the misconception that Shi’a perform the five daily prayers on three occasions as opposed to five like the Sunnis.

The practice of temporary marriage is one of the major differences between Sunni and Shi’a traditions.
According to Shi’a customs, temporary marriage entails that a Muslim man may marry a Muslim woman or non-Muslim woman (from amongst the people of the book) for a pre-determined period of time.

Amongst the most contested practices of the Shi’a and the most misunderstood practices of the Shi’a is the practice known as Intercession. Many non-Shi’as view this practice as a direct violation of the Islamic belief of pure monotheism (Tawheed) and have accused Shi’as of practicing Shirk due to such practices.